Purdue professor part of national study of science-education specialists

May 16, 2013

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A new type of science faculty,
those who specialize in science education, is on the rise, but less than half
have formal training in education, according to a recent study.

Nancy Pelaez, a Purdue University associate professor of
biological sciences, was part of a team that performed the first large-scale
study of U.S. science faculty with education specialties. This new type of
position exists within science departments and focuses on improving
undergraduate and kindergarten through 12th-grade science education.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that 94
percent of the respondents had originally been trained in basic research and 43
percent had formal training in science education, such as a master's, doctoral
degree or graduate fellowship in science education or a K-12 teaching
credential.

"Education training provides important skills and
tools that someone trained in basic research may not possess, for instance
techniques to evaluate students and reach those who are struggling with
material," said Pelaez, who founded the Purdue International Biology
Education Research Group. "Those without that training may only look at
test results as an assessment measure. A poor test result identifies a student
who is having problems with the material, but it doesn't tell the nature or
reason for those problems. It also typically comes at a point where it will be
difficult to intervene and re-engage the student. Those who have studied or had
training in education in addition to their science background better know how
to look at the whole process and ways to improve it."

The study also found that faculty in these positions at
master's degree-granting institutions were more likely to have formal training
in science education, at 60.9 percent, than those at doctoral degree-granting
institutions, at 39.3 percent. Despite having a smaller percentage of faculty
trained in science education, the study found that faculty at doctoral
degree-granting institutions had higher success rates in obtaining funding for
science education research and projects.

"This is an emerging field, and these discrepancies
may be due to a lack of a critical mass of people with this training and
expertise," Pelaez said. "It may be that panels making funding
decisions don't understand the value of science education training. That will
likely shift as more and more individuals obtain this expertise and sit on such
panels."

The National Science Foundation-funded study included 289
science faculty with education specialties from 45 states, Washington, D.C.,
and Puerto Rico.

"Science faculty with education specialties is a
widespread and growing group," Pelaez said. "It is clear science
departments recognize the value in these positions in improving teaching and
learning because such positions were found across the nation and within
different types of institutions."

Although this type of faculty is on the rise, there are
only a handful of programs training them, Pelaez said.

"Some of the science faculty with education
specialties may be seeking to educate themselves, but aren't finding many
opportunities to do so," she said. "We need to increase the
opportunities available. It doesn't have to happen in a set, prescribed way,
but it is important for them to obtain these skills. Knowing science is only
one part of being a great teacher of science or researcher of science-education
methods."

Purdue offers doctoral degree programs to train graduate
students in biology, chemistry and physics to do education work. In addition,
Purdue's International Biology Education Research Group collaborates with
science faculty across the United States and internationally to provide
opportunities for formal training in science education and holds weekly open
meetings where any faculty member or student can come to learn more about
science education, she said.

Pelaez is a member of a collaborative team of six co-authors
who contributed equally to this research. In addition to Pelaez, the research
team includes Seth Bush of California Polytechnic State University, James Rudd
II of California State University, Michael Stevens of Utah Valley University,
Kimberly Tanner of San Francisco State University and Kathy Williams of San
Diego State University.

Pelaez also was part of a research team that performed a
2008 study of the characteristics and training of science faculty with
education specialties in the California State University system. A paper
detailing that study was published in the journal Science.

College and university
science departments are increasingly taking an active role in improving science
education. Perhaps as a result, a new type of specialized science faculty
position within science departments is emerging - referred to here as science
faculty with education specialties - where individual scientists focus their
professional efforts on strengthening undergraduate science education,
improving kindergarten- through 12th-grade science education, and conducting
discipline-based education research. Numerous assertions, assumptions, and
questions about SFES exist, yet no national studies have been published. Here,
we present findings from a large-scale study of U.S. SFES, who are widespread
and increasing in numbers. Contrary to many assumptions, SFES were indeed found
across the nation, across science disciplines and, most notably, across
primarily undergraduate, master of science-granting and Ph.D.-granting
institutions. Data also reveal unexpected variations among SFES by institution
type. Among respondent, SFES at master of science-granting institutions were
almost twice as likely to have formal training in science education compared
with other SFES. In addition, SFES at Ph.D.-granting institutions were much
more likely to have obtained science education funding. Surprisingly, formal
training in science education provided no advantage in obtaining science
education funding. Our findings show that the SFES phenomenon is likely more
complex and diverse than anticipated, with differences being more evident
across institution types than across science disciplines. These findings raise
questions about the origins of differences among SFES and are useful to science
departments interested in hiring SFES, scientific trainees preparing for SFES
careers, and agencies awarding science education funding.